Too Many Hands…
When I wrote the earlier post on Obama and Notre Dame, I prefaced it with a disclaimer of sorts: I did not want to wade into the issue of whether or not Obama should have received this honor in the first place. I merely wanted to address the familiar hypocrisy of many (thought by no means all) of those who disapproved. And I thought I provided some apt examples, both in text and comments. But it soon became clear this narrower issue could not be divorced from the larger issue.
The reason I did not wish to wade into this was, quite frankly, because I do not have a consistently worked out view on it. I find myself going back and forth by Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof!
On one hand, it is part of our tradition to honor secular rulers even when they have done some pretty awful things. Examples are legion, and others have referred to Thomas More and Charlemagne. One of my favorite examples is the gushing rhetoric used by Pope Gregory the Great about Emperor Phocas after Phocas seized the throne and murdered his predecessor and his predecessor’s family. Gregory needed the emperor’s help and support in Italy, and was willing to overlook his “flaws”.
On the other hand, our more recent tradition is more inclined to support a strong moral stance against “official” evil acts. This could possibly be one of the benefits of the liberal tradition, and we are deluding ourselves if we no not recognize it as part of the liberal tradition. Any regular reader of this blog knows I am a fan of Elizabeth Anscombe, and my first exposure to her thought was her vehement denunciation of Oxford’s decision to grant an honorary degree to the war criminal Harry Truman. I could see a similar stance being taken against an honor given to Bush or Cheney (Anscombe objected to the mere public recognition; it was nothing to do with a Catholic college).
But going back to the first hand, Obama is not directly implicated in such a grave moral evil. FOCA might rise to the occasion, but there is no FOCA. If we include things like the Mexico City policy and the ESCR, then we are setting the bar at a low level, and by that I mean in a manner that would implicate the vast majority of elected officials for supporting one or other evil act. (I am assuming of course that we adopt a consistent stance here– a big assumption, mind you!).
Switching hands again, perhaps there is some merit in this, for it would induce a much-needed separation between the Catholic world and the secular political world. For if we become partisans, the temptation is to ignore those aspects of the ideology that do not accord well with Catholic teaching. New Deal Catholic Democrats felt justifiably betrayed by the party’s take-over by secular liberals in the 1970s. Pro-life Catholics have been similarly betrayed by the Republican party, in the thrall of laissez-faire liberals, militarists, and nutty culture warriors. So it could be a good signal that Catholics are going to chart out own course in a more united fashion. It would be far better than for Catholics to play the unseemly game of using the crutch of Catholic teaching to support what is effectively a partisan position.
Conclusion? There isn’t one. Deal with it!
Comments are closed.
My problem with your post was not that you failed to articulate a position on whether the Obama invitation was prudent; I don’t have such a position, either.
My problem was that what your post did was counter-productive — it fed the popular notion that Catholic pro-lifers are inconsistent hypocrites who only care about human life before birth.
It didn’t seem to me that this was a message that out culture needs to hear right now.
This whole matter is a concocted fight, by those looking for a fight and a chance to insult the President and ALL of his policies including those in harmony with the Catholic bishops.
Anyone looking for civility and concord could find it. This fight was not necessary.
The Anaphora of the Liturgy of Addai and Mari of the Assyrian Church of the East is considered valid by the Catholic Church even though it does not include the Words of Institution ( Decree of the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, January 17 2001) because the action is deemed to have the meaning the Assyrian Church INTENDS it to have. Rome defers to the Church whose liturgy it is.
Whatever reservations some have, nothing prevents them (and civility, charity and respect might demand of them) that Notre Dame’s action means what Notre Dame INTENDS it to mean. And if it does not mean it to be a statement in favor or indifferent to legalized abortion, then it doesn’t mean that. Period, problem solved — except for those who WANT a problem.
Translation:
Even though Obama is evil, he’s not George W. so it’s OK. Get over it.
This is beyond bizarre. How exactly do you propose to rally Catholics to lobby for a “consistent ethic of life” if your Obamania keeps you from taking a stand on a simple matter like this? Why don’t you stop writing and head over to Mirror of Justice to read some blog posts that make sense?
Thanks for addressing the background issue MM. I think the analogy in your prior post was unsatisfying (as you are undoubtedly aware), but I appreciate the straight forward approach here.
If we include things like the Mexico City policy and the ESCR, then we are setting the bar at a low level, and by that I mean in a manner that would implicate the vast majority of elected officials for supporting one or other evil act.
I think the better gauge of the level of the bar is, not the number of people implicated, but the magnitude of the evil.
If you really don’t have an opinion of your own, perhaps you ought to support the bishop responsible for the diocese in question.
I appreciated this from Bp. D’Arcy’s statement: “I have in mind also the statement of the U.S. Catholic Bishops in 2004. “’he Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.’ Indeed, the measure of any Catholic institution is not only what it stands for, but also what it will not stand for.”
MM,
I agree with the Anscombean line. Simply put, err on the side of prophetic witness against those in highest places of power, and with the most public association with whether the culture will be one of death or life.
This also means erring on the side of opposing such honors not just because of what the person is directly involved in, but wbecause of what he or she has come to stand for; and has presented themselves as the figurehead for. Clearly Obama has not run on a platform of trying to be the best child murderer, and when it comes to what he stands for that wont be the first thing popping into people’s minds. He certainly stands for some good things. But lets not kid ourselves: he has committed himself publicly, adamantly, to a cause the vision of which translates into a practical holocaust.
Part of the judgment on whether this was a success or a failure in prudence should also attend to what the person in power supports, facilitates, and works to make prosper as a feature of law and culture. And that is precisely what is at play in calling this scandalous or not.
Something tells me that if a university was honoring a politician who did not directly enslaved anyone, but 1) supported legislation, lifted bans, etc. and 2) publicly committed himself time and again to be the figurehead of the “Make Slavery a Legal Right” movement; we would find this scandalous and imprudent.
To a certain extent (and the Church seems to agree), there is a higher standard for politicians when it comes to these things.
Pax Christi,
Kurt,
Your first statement is simply false. What I find rather amazing is that MM is one of the only one’s here who has acknowledged that it is at least reasonable to find scandal and imprudence in this decision (even if one does not agree that it is scandalous). Overwhelmingly, everyone else seems to think that any opposition must of course be irrational and guided only by partisan nit-picking. Surely those who oppose it are being dishonest and disingenuous. I don’t see why its so hard to see the rationale behind the other side.
I wish we lived in a world where public decisions and honors and the like could be made in an intentional vacuum. But the fact is acts have meanings and carry connotations in spite of our intentions and they must be factored into our evaluations; it then becomes a matter of prudence or imprudence. If I were to shout the “N” word in public, but told everyone I meant something else by it (and truly did), my action would still be found to be ridiculously imprudent, and it would seemingly cause scandal. To ignore this dimension is simply to talk about a moral world that is imaginary.
Let me see if I can clear this up: the issue is NOT whether the university or the Church is publicly endorsing Obama’s position on abortion. I (and other reasonable people) completely agree that one can invite a speaker (or even vote for someone) without somehow formally cooperating in everything the speaker says and does. The issue IS whether or not, IN SPITE OF THAT FACT, it was a good or a bad idea to honor him.
Again, I’ll analogize, and it won’t be necessary to consider actual history here (it won’t be directly relevant): if the university were well known for its opposition to the Holocaust, but invited Hitler to speak and gave him an honorary degree, would anyone find this scandalous and imprudent DESPITE the fact that the university does not endorse the Holocaust?
Pax Christi,
Something tells me that if a university was honoring a politician who did not directly enslaved anyone, but 1) supported legislation, lifted bans, etc. and 2) publicly committed himself time and again to be the figurehead of the “Make Slavery a Legal Right” movement; we would find this scandalous and imprudent.
We, as Catholics, did not find it scandalous when this occurred. In fact, many Catholic institutions continue to “condone slavery” but honoring President Washington in their observance of this birthday.
Your problem, X-C is that you are quick to cite what today are closed matters of social discussion but have yet to cite an actually example of the Church’s action during the time these matters were of social debate and discussion. (We are back to Maria Laach, aren’t we?)
If I may speak freely, my hunch is that the opposition is more than partisan nit-picking. It is a deliberate attempt by political conservatives to cleanse the pro-life movement of its liberal and “seamless garment” members. They are not concerned about the integrity or effectiveness of the pro-life movement. They are concerned that the presence of these people in their movement blunts their ability to use it as a tool to advance the whole secular conservative agenda. By chasing out the whiney, hand-wrenching, conflicted “oh, Obama is so wrong on abortion but good on Iraq and health care. I just don’t know what to do. [cry, cry, whimper, whimper]” school, they then have total control of the pro-life movement and can more effectively use it (as they already do to a degree) to coordinate strategy with the NRA, the foreign policy hawks, the Chamber of Commerce, etc.
Whatever reservations some have, nothing prevents them (and civility, charity and respect might demand of them) that Notre Dame’s action means what Notre Dame INTENDS it to mean
Would this were the way things work, byut unfortunately they don’t. Perception is reality. One may commit adultery and claim that it is not intended to harm one’s spouse, but to express one’s taste for sexual variety, but that doesn’t change the fact that it does harm one’s spouse.
By honoring President Obama, UND is communicating either that it has not standards for what actions would disqualify one for an honor, which would make its honors essentially meaningless, or that President Obama’s record on abortion and embryonic research is insufficient to disqualify him, which is a statement on how strongly UND honors and respects life.
–
As for the vast right wing conspiracy, I suppose there’s no way to deny it, and I would suspect that some of it is fueled by a desire to align the pro-life movement closer to the Republican Party. And some opposition to same sex marriage is fueled by anti-gay bigotry. And some of those who opposed torture and the war did so more out of personal dislike for George W. Bush than a principled stand for peace.
None of that makes any of these positions wrong. Which is why fruitful debates confront the best arguments on the other side rather than question the motives of the worst.
There have been good reasons articulated for being troubled by this honor. And ironically, by using this as an occasion to distance yourself from the pro-life movement, you are delivering the more extreme voices of the pro-life movement exactly what you claim they are seeking.
Zippy,
The bishop can do as he wishes in his own diocese. I prefer to support the position of the bishop in my own diocese.
Oddly, MM, Bishop Weurl’s article doesn’t appear to address the question of whether Obama ought to speak at Notre Dame. In fact it doesn’t discuss the President at all.
And if you are invoking his article as a general admonition about how one ought to address those with whom one disagrees profoundly, then perhaps you’ve missed the irony.
MM, I have great respect for Archbp. Weurl, especially as someone involved in catechesis. But he doesn’t always seem to take the reality of scandal into account; I certainly agree that we should seek to understand & dialogue, but there are other factors which must be taken into account as well.
In any case, Bishop D’Arcy referred to the ’04 statement of the conference on the specific point under contention, and it’s clear.
It is you Zippy who missed the point. In other thread you reverted to standard American culture war language when you referred to VN as a “purported Catholic blog”. It’s this very attitude that Wuerl is addressing. It’s this very attitude that– in a very different context– Pope Benedict XV condemned, and that our present pope referred to when he took his predecessor’s name. I would advise you to take off your American worldview and put on Christ instead.
Am I still allowed to post here, or has Henry’s tantrum covered all the threads?
Yes, I know MM, you are so genteel in your own language when speaking of those with whom you disagree; such a faithful follower of your Bishop.
It is hysterical that you don’t see the irony, and at the same time the whole line of discussion is a red herring: Bishop Weurl’s letter doesn’t even mention the President, let alone the Notre Dame commencement. Is Bishop Weurl going to be attending it?
Large numbers of Catholics–including students, faculty members, and alumni of Notre Dame–are voicing opposition to the honor to be bestowed on President Obama because it appears to signal support for his policies on the life issues. The response to their concern from Catholics who worked for Obama’s election has ranged from dismissive to scornful and (as in “take off your American worldview and put on Christ instead”) pompously self-righteous. Pro-Obama Catholics have been telling the rest of us that the ND invite is a great opportunity for “dialogue” – Can we be blamed for suspecting that they really mean the same sort of contempt they’ve been heaping on people who speak in defense of Catholic moral teachings and the position of the Catholic bishops on honoring pro-abortion politicians?
Why isn’t saying “take off your American worldview and put on Christ instead” throwing a stone?
Pro-Obama Catholics have been telling the rest of us that the ND invite is a great opportunity for “dialogue” – Can we be blamed for suspecting that they really mean the same sort of contempt they’ve been heaping on people who speak in defense of Catholic moral teachings
I would like an example of contempt from Pro-Obama Catholics towards the Church’s teaching on the immorality of abortion or the Church’s call that there should be civil action of some sort defending life.
One may commit adultery and claim that it is not intended to harm one’s spouse…
Adultery, or performing an abortion are objectively immoral acts. Ceremonies and symbolic acts are subject to the meaning the actor assigns to them.
If perception is reality in this instance, the consensus of opinion will be far more in favor that ND’s critics are a bunch of [I'm not I can use the words the consensus of the public would apply] than “oh, is the Catholic Church against abortion? I didn’t know that. I assumed since the president gave a speech at ND, they had no problem with abortion. I guess I need to read the papers more often.”
Kurt,
Someone flying a Confederate Flag to express his affirmation of states’ rights would be guilty of, if nothing else, severe imprudence. One would be communicating that the Confederacy’s stance on states’ rights was more significant and important than that the main states’ right being asserted was to give a licesne for treating a class of human beings as property.
Honoring President Obama communicates that his other accomplishments, including attaining the office of the presidency are more significant that his record on abortion and embryonic research. I’m not positive that isn’t the case, but we need to be honest about what we’re doing rather than just waving it off as if we’re not.
–
I don’t think that people will conclude from Obama’s honor that the Church is no longer against abortion.
I think some may come to the incorrect conclusion that this signifies a softening in the Church’s opposition to the abortion license and embryonic research.
It would not be difficult to see how this could be cited as evidence that the Church no longer believes that opposition to legalized abortion is required.
JohnMcC,
I guessed you missed the memorial service for the Confederate veterans at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Alabama.
I guessed you missed the memorial service for the Confederate veterans at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Alabama
In fact I did.
Here’s a sampling of how this is being received by relevant parties. I’m sure the malevolent hand of Karl Rove is orchestrating this somehow, but it’s a little bit difficult for me to see it through all the appeals to Church teaching, USCCB instructions, and concern about the position this puts pro-life students in.
The bishop can do as he wishes in his own diocese. I prefer to support the position of the bishop in my own diocese.
you’re not consistent in anything
What is the game now, pick which Bishop you follow
BTW, the fact that you didn’t miss this memorial service, and that it was deemed newsworthy underscores that the Church runs very serious risks when it decides to honor individuals with strong associations to immoral causes.
These factors will weigh differently in different cases, but they can’t simply be wished away.
So, wait.
American Catholic leaders getting chummy with President Bush = acting too American and not Catholic enough.
American Catholic leaders getting chummy with President Obama = acting Catholic, and don’t complain about it because that’s sooo Americanist.
Ok. Got it.
Kurt,
You’re still missing the point, and your historical citations are, again, more distracting than informative. It is not at all clear that in the instances you cite, there was no scandal, and thus this somehow sets a precedent for judging scandal now. Church endorsement of slavery IS scandalous, and if it was not judged so in the past, that is a problem, not a precedent. History is littered with examples of the Church doing very imprudent things. All you really show is that the Church is itself not immune to imprudence. That in no way addresses my criticism.
You fail to address my analogies as stated. Forget about the Church’s past record with scandal for the moment, and simply answer the question proposed by my analogy as YOU would answer it AS A CATHOLIC living NOW. Something tells me you would find honoring Hitler scandalous, whether or not some university or Church leader in the past did. The force of the analogy comes from that.
And you seem to completely miss the distinction between the question of endorsement and cooperation and the question of prudence, which JohnMcG has eloquently explained and which I took great pains to try and make clear. Simply put: if you were to scream out the “N” word in public, at the top of your lungs, but made sure to tell people you really meant something completely different by the word, would that action nonetheless be considered imprudent?
The confederate flag business could very well be considered imprudent. There is nothing inconsistent about me confirming that and opposing ND’s decision. Nothing at all.
Again, your claim that everything must boil down to some irrational, right-wing nutjob conspiracy to pick fights is simply a fairytale; one that I’m growing tired of being written into.
Pax Christi,
This question was raised by one commenter on dotCommonweal. If Notre Dame has done such aan objectionable thing in inviting Obama to be the commencement speaker, should Mary Ann Glendon decline to show up and accept the Laetare Medal?
Oh good, more “gotcha” games…
To answer this question, I would consider it a prudential decision on Ms. Glendon’s part. Bishop D’Arcy encouraged her to go; that would probably be good enough for me if I were in her position.
That the invitation puts Ms. Glendon in a position where this decision is at all difficult is part of the reason why some are upset about it.
–
You may now proceed with your mock accusations of my squishiness and hypocrisy.
Oh good, more “gotcha” games…
John McG,
If you are referring to my comments, I think it is a perfectly valid question. If it is an outrage for Notre Dame to honor Obama, is it not questionable whether a faithful Catholic should agree to accept an honor at the same ceremony? It’s very tempting to ask, “If Notre Dame were honoring [insert your most objectionable person of choice here, other than Obama], would you accept an award at the same ceremony?” (Keep in mind that Hitler is dead.)
As I am sure you know, Bishop D’Arcy, in whose diocese Notre Dame is located, is boycotting the event, and he says:
Why has Bishop D’Arcy encouraged Mary Ann Glendon to attend? Is he expecting her to do “Point-Counterpoint” with Obama?
You may now proceed with your mock accusations of my squishiness and hypocrisy.
John McG,
If anyone is trying to make this personal, it’s not me. Do me the courtesy of not criticizing my positions until I actually take them.
Kurt,
This is what I wrote:
Can we be blamed for suspecting that they really mean the same sort of contempt they’ve been heaping on people who speak in defense of Catholic moral teachings . . .
This is how you translated it:
I would like an example of contempt from Pro-Obama Catholics towards the Church’s teaching on the immorality of abortion . . .
It’s the people defending Church teachings who are treated with contempt, the pro-lifers whose concerns about the action at Notre Dame are caricatured as “perpetually offended” types who need to “grow up already.” You may recall those lines from the opening of a thread of “dialogue” on this very blog.
Pro-Obama Catholics seldom ridicule Church teachings on abortion; they simply reinterpret them to suit their political preferences, as in the now-classic “Personally opposed, but . . . ” sleight-of-speech that gained widespread circulation after another politician’s address at Notre Dame some years back.
Ron,
People simply claiming that abortion is objectively immoral and that the unborn need social and civil protection are not only unworthy of contempt for those stances but greatly honorable people for such a witness. Those claiming that it is a violation of Catholic doctrine for the President to speak at Notre Dame are deserving of criticism. The same is true of those who claim they are defending “Church teachings” by asserting the Catholic “doctrine” of the fungibility of funds and the “doctrine” of the moral requirement to vote for a non-germane second degree amendment to the Rule allowing a motion to proceed.
Those claiming that it is a violation of Catholic doctrine for the President to speak at Notre Dame are deserving of criticism.
Has anybody claimed that?
Ron said the people defending Church doctrine are treated with contempt by pro-Obama Catholics. I would like to see an example of people being treated with contempt for simply asserting that abortion is wrong and the unborn should be protected.
The criticism I have seen is exclusively about matters that are not doctrine or teaching but strategy, politics, tactics, discernments, questionable assertions and other matters of human judgment.